WASHINGTON — President Trump threatened on Wednesday to use the federal government’s power to license television airwaves to target NBC in response to a report by the network’s news division that he contemplated a dramatic increase in the nation’s nuclear arsenal.

In a story aired and posted online Wednesday morning, NBC reported that Mr. Trump said during a meeting last summer that he wanted what amounted to a nearly tenfold increase in the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile, stunning some members of his national security team. It was after this meeting that Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson reportedly said Mr. Trump was a “moron.”

Mr. Trump objected to the report in two messages on Twitter later Wednesday and threatened to use the authority of the federal government to retaliate.

He repeated his complaint later in the day when reporters arrived to cover his meeting with the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau. “It is frankly disgusting the press is able to write whatever it wants to write,” Mr. Trump said.

The comments immediately drew criticism that the president was using his office to undermine First Amendment guarantees of free speech and free press. And, in fact, the networks themselves — and their news departments — do not hold federal licenses, though individual affiliates do.

“Broadcast licenses are a public trust,” said Tom Wheeler, who until January was chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, appointed by President Barack Obama. “They’re not a political toy, which is what he’s trying to do here.”

In suggesting that a broadcast network’s license be targeted because of its coverage, Mr. Trump once again evoked the Watergate era when President Richard M. Nixon told advisers to make it difficult for The Washington Post to renew the F.C.C. license for a Florida television station it owned. A businessman with ties to Mr. Nixon filed paperwork to challenge The Post’s ownership of the station. The Justice Department under Mr. Nixon also filed antitrust charges against the three major television networks.

In Mr. Trump’s case, it may just be an idle threat, the sort of bluster that he has regularly used to keep news organizations and other individuals and institutions he perceives to be rivals off balance. Just a day earlier, he went on Twitter to suggest using federal tax law to punish the National Football League as part of his campaign against players who kneel during the national anthem, only to have a spokeswoman later say he was only making a point.

But Mr. Wheeler said it could also be taken as instruction by his supporters who could act on his behalf. “This sounds to me like another dog whistle for folks to file against the license renewals,” he said. “Clearly it would be a bridge too far for the Trump F.C.C. to move on their own initiative. But if some conservative groups were to take this as their marching orders, it would be an interesting situation to see what the Trump F.C.C. did.”

...

While its members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the F.C.C. is a separate agency mandated to act independently from the White House. Mr. Trump’s tweet suggested a potential misunderstanding of how television licenses work.

NBC, like ABC, CBS, Fox and CNN, are television networks that do not license spectrum. Therefore, there are no licenses held directly by networks that create programs, which are then pushed out to television stations to run over airwaves and into American homes.

But NBC’s parent company, Comcast, does own television stations that do license airwaves from the F.C.C., as do CBS and ABC’s parent company, Walt Disney. But the networks themselves, and NBC News in particular, do not license airwaves.

The president’s tweets stoked strong pushback from consumer groups that said the threat to NBC was clear.

“This is not just a huge issue from a First Amendment standpoint, it is at best a weird way to go at it and nonetheless very problematic,” said Matt Wood, policy director at Free Press, an advocacy group on communications issues before the F.C.C. “The message is clear, you don’t have to work hard to see how those words are chilling.”

...

Mr. Trump’s threat was hardly the first time a president has sought to stifle the media. “Trump is following in one of our more sordid presidential traditions,” said John A. Farrell, author of “Richard Nixon: The Life.”

He noted that President John F. Kennedy pressured The New York Times to pull its reporter, David Halberstam, out of Vietnam because of his critical reporting on the war, and President Lyndon B. Johnson harassed Frank Stanton, the president of CBS, over the network’s reporting from that war zone.

The Nixon White House “carried the campaign against the press to considerable length,” Mr. Farrell said, including bugging reporters and infiltrating the press corps with dirty tricksters.

He cited a 1971 discussion, captured on Mr. Nixon’s secret tapes, in which Charles Colson tells the president that the threat of an antitrust suit “gives us one hell of a club” to hold over the networks. “Our game here is solely political,” Mr. Nixon replied. “As far as screwing them is concerned, I am very glad to do it.”

...Trump vented to his longtime security chief, Keith Schiller, “I hate everyone in the White House! There are a few exceptions, but I hate them!” (A White House official denies this.) Two senior Republican officials said Chief of Staff John Kelly is miserable in his job and is remaining out of a sense of duty to keep Trump from making some sort of disastrous decision. Today, speculation about Kelly’s future increased after Politico reported that Kelly’s deputy Kirstjen Nielsen is likely to be named Homeland Security Secretary—the theory among some Republicans is that Kelly wanted to give her a soft landing before his departure.

One former official even speculated that Kelly and Secretary of Defense James Mattis have discussed what they would do in the event Trump ordered a nuclear first strike. “Would they tackle him?” the person said. Even Trump’s most loyal backers are sowing public doubts. This morning, The Washington Post quoted longtime Trump friend Tom Barrack saying he has been “shocked” and “stunned” by Trump’s behavior.

...

Even before Corker’s remarks, some West Wing advisers were worried that Trump’s behavior could cause the Cabinet to take extraordinary Constitutional measures to remove him from office. Several months ago, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation, former chief strategist Steve Bannon told Trump that the risk to his presidency wasn’t impeachment, but the 25th Amendment—the provision by which a majority of the Cabinet can vote to remove the president. When Bannon mentioned the 25th Amendment, Trump said, “What’s that?” According to a source, Bannon has told people he thinks Trump has only a 30 percent chance of making it the full term....

"He repeated his complaint later in the day when reporters arrived to cover his meeting with the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau. “It is frankly disgusting the press is able to write whatever it wants to write,” Mr. Trump said.

The comments immediately drew criticism that the president was using his office to undermine First Amendment guarantees of free speech and free press. And, in fact, the networks themselves — and their news departments — do not hold federal licenses, though individual affiliates do.

“Broadcast licenses are a public trust,” said Tom Wheeler, who until January was chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, appointed by President Barack Obama. “They’re not a political toy, which is what he’s trying to do here.”

In suggesting that a broadcast network’s license be targeted because of its coverage, Mr. Trump once again evoked the Watergate era when President Richard M. Nixon told advisers to make it difficult for The Washington Post to renew the F.C.C. license for a Florida television station it owned. A businessman with ties to Mr. Nixon filed paperwork to challenge The Post’s ownership of the station. The Justice Department under Mr. Nixon also filed antitrust charges against the three major television networks."

This all brings up an interesting point.... If removing their broadcast license means the Trump administration aka our government are suppressing freedom of the press, does that mean the government is actually *granting* us the ability to have a free press by issuing licenses, rather than the Constitution? If so, it isn't free to begin with, is it?

^Although freedom of speech is an constitutional right, the vehicle by which that speech is presented is not.

The FCC grants licenses to individual broadcast stations not networks. It is up to the networks to determine what gets aired.

With regard to your point on the inherent subjectiveness in granting individuals licenses (which therefore raises the question of if/how individuals' rights are being suppressed), there are supposed to be mechanisms in place to prevent this. I don't know if applications sit in some sort of que and are reviewed in the order they are received, wherein at that point the "character policy" could come into play. The bar is not set very high with that regard, but you raise an important point: Freedom of speech is nevertheless being manipulated and suppressed by limiting an individual's means of expression.

Keep in mind the licensing requirements to stream on the internet are not addressed in the Telecommunications Act (1994), but who knows how this will eventually change.

As raging wildfires devour the lives, homes and dreams of Californians in an unprecedented scale, one voice has been conspicuously mute through day after day of crisis: President Trump.

This is not a man who is reticent to let Americans know what is foremost on his mind. He is also someone who should have learned by now — after devastating hurricanes and the Las Vegas massacre — that Americans expect their president to step forward with empathy and resolve in moments of national trauma.

Yet Trump has offered no more than a few perfunctory words about the Wine Country fires that have left at least 40 dead, consumed thousands of structures and stretched the physical and mental mettle of the dedicated firefighters and medical professionals to the edge of exhaustion.

On Tuesday, before welcoming the Stanley Cup champion Pittsburgh Penguins, Trump said he had spoken with Gov. Jerry Brown and that the federal government would stand with the “people of California and be there with you in this time of terrible tragedy and need.”

That’s it? No talk of visiting California? No expressions of appreciation for the first responders? No condolences for those who lost their lives, or the many more who lost their homes? No recognition or pledges of federal support for the monumental task of rebuilding the neighborhoods and business that were devoured in the fire?

Then again, how much is a Trump pledge worth, anyway? His typically rapid-fire succession of tweets this week included some that seemed to blame Puerto Rico for its post-hurricane financial crisis and a warning that “We cannot keep FEMA, the Military & the First Responders, who have been amazing (under the most difficult circumstances) in P.R. forever!”

This is a president who views tweets as his primary means of connecting with the people, without the media filter he loathes. Dare we suggest that forcing NFL players to stand for the national anthem — to name one of his recent obsessions — is not a life-and-death situation. The fires are.

And how many times has Trump tweeted about the fires since they were whipped by winds into life-threatening force early Monday: zero.

Among the subjects that have merited a Trump tweet since then:

•Oh, that NFL anthem issue (in which he falsely characterized the commissioner’s position; Roger Goodell did not demand that players stand).

A threat to revoke the licenses of broadcast networks that have become (in his view) too “partisan, distorted and fake” (though there is no federal licensing of broadcast networks).

•A promotion for his obsequious interview by his Fox News pal Sean Hannity.

•A false claim that the New York Times set up “Liddle Bob Corker” by recording its interview with the Republican senator from Tennessee. In fact, Corker had consented to the recording.

•Praise for a flattering new book about him.

•A false claim that the NFL is “getting massive tax breaks” while its players disrespect the flag, anthem and country. In fact, the league voluntarily relinquished its tax-exempt status two years ago.

•A boast: “Nobody could have done what I’ve done for #Puerto Rico with so little appreciation.”

•More self-congratulation: “Such a wonderful statement from the great @LouDobbs (of Fox Business Network) ‘We take up what may be the most accomplished presidency in modern American history.’”

So how can it be that the loss of 40 human beings on American soil did not merit a single tweet? The most forgiving interpretation would be that Trump, along with the cable networks that seem to attract his laser focus and have not made this a huge story, have a case of disaster fatigue. Perhaps the problem is that he hasn’t been blasted for his underwhelming response:There is no surer way to provoke him to his phone. The most cynical speculation would be that he could not care less about a state that despises him like no other.

At a private dinner, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster reportedly mocked Trump’s intelligence, stating that his intelligence was comparable to a “kindergartner.” Citing five sources, BuzzFeed reports that during the same conversation he also reportedly called the President an “idiot” and a “dope.” A spokesperson for the National Security Council said the story was “false”.

Another source said that this wasn’t the first time McMaster has called Trump’s intelligence into question, citing a separate event where he suggested that Trump was not capable of understanding the issues the National Security Council deals with.

This isn’t the first time a high-ranking member of Trump’s administration has called his intelligence into question. Earlier this year Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reportedly called the President a “moron.”

There is no doubt that trump is very "dumb" in the conventional sense. But as far as manipulating the media and political foes (pretty much anyone who engages with him) he is extremely effective in his stagecraft. Its terrifying more than anything.I can't beleive that is completely random.How aware he is of his repeated technique of pacing and leading, suggestive imaging, etc. I dont know, but he has been consistent and very effective for the last couple years The media time and again gobbles up the bait. That seems to be what they are set up to do.I cant imagine a boring/smart politician ever being president again.

I dont see how policy will play any significant part in the 2020 election. I think it will be all personality, like it has been for the last 30-40 years.

Matz wrote:then how the fuck did he get in to Wharton? Well, I guess his dad bought him in. I just thought you had to have the grades

It's not hard to get good grades... you don't have to be smart to do that. You just have to be obedient. Or, pay people who are.

And yes, the Ivies are weird, because they are exceptionally good schools that produce exceptionally good academics and professionals. But they are also exclusionary, snobbish, elitist (in the true, deserving pejorative, sense), cliques for the super-wealthy to ensure that their children only associate with other members of the same social class. It is not difficult to be admitted if you know people, or know who to pay.